LIBEL ACTION
PLAINTIFF. SECURES DAMAGES. (By Telegraph.—Press Association.) Chrislchurch, August 19. At the Supreme Court to-day the ease Amio Hawko v. the) "Lyttelton Times" Company was concluded. Plaintiff claimed £501 for alleged libel, thero being six causes of action set out. Tlje case arose out of fclfo publication of certain letters, interviews, and reports connected witli the Canterbury Patriotic Fund. The following were the issues submitted and answers returned:— Were the words in the letter defamatory?— No. Was the letter containing the said words published with the consent of plaintiff?— No. If not so published, what damages is plaintiff entitled to recover ? —Nil. Are the words set out in the .interview defamatory?— Yes. If Yes, what damage, if any.—£loo. Were the words set out in the report of the meeting defamatory to the plaintiff?— Yes. If Yes, what damages?—£lso. Was the report of the committee meeting of the Patriotic Fund a fair and accurate report of the proceedings of such committee meetings; (a) as published in the "Star"? —No. (b) as published in the "Lyttelton Times"?— Yes. Was tho publication for "the public benefit?— No.'
Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/DOM19150820.2.104
Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka
Dominion, Volume 8, Issue 2545, 20 August 1915, Page 9
Word count
Tapeke kupu
185LIBEL ACTION Dominion, Volume 8, Issue 2545, 20 August 1915, Page 9
Using this item
Te whakamahi i tēnei tūemi
Stuff Ltd is the copyright owner for the Dominion. You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International licence (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0). This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of Stuff Ltd. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.
Log in